Precedent is a good guide but a bad determinant. To believe that something cannot happen because it hasn’t previously happened is to end up being unpleasantly surprised. It’s therefore possible that the Democrats could look past the current or former governors, senators and vice-president in order to select as their candidate someone who’s not just the mayor of a city the size of Chesterfield but who’s still in his thirties and gay. Possible but surely unlikely, you’d think.

Mayor Pete is formally launching his campaign today and the most interesting figure will be how much raises in the first 24 hours afterwards. You could equally argue that the fact that the leaders are aged 76 and 77 which is totally unprecedented makes them an even greater risk

Whoa, Kamala Harris has dropped way back. I'm not a fan and I've said she was over-hyped before and doesn't have the required spikiness but objectively, she's running a professional campaign, plenty of money, state with lots of voters, she's got more chance than 7%.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

What goes on in Millfield stays in Millfield.

Including my address book....... I later saw him on TV with Prince Charles where he was described as 'one of the richest men in the world'

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

What goes on in Millfield stays in Millfield.

Including my address book....... I later saw him on TV with Prince Charles where he was described as 'one of the richest men in the world'

As rich as you, Roger?

Btw, it's interesting that you can have a black or gay US President now, but I doubt you could have an atheist.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

I don’t understand your second paragraph. How will his being gay take down other candidates?

He has the temperament to be a good president. He now needs some policies that are a little more relevant to daily life than abolishing the electoral college or transgender bathrooms.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

The Yougov numbers had UKIP on 14%, not 11% so they get a one more seat. I think it would be touch and go between Labour, Brexit, and Conservative who picks up the last seat in each region. I don't think Labour would get 25 on those numbers.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew at Tonbridge so a few went elsewhere

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

As Frankie Boyle pointed out, Brunei has a very specific meaning phonetically in Glasgow, and the Sultan of Broon Eye suggests the more flamboyant & licentious type of gay man.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

What goes on in Millfield stays in Millfield.

Including my address book....... I later saw him on TV with Prince Charles where he was described as 'one of the richest men in the world'

As rich as you, Roger?

Btw, it's interesting that you can have a black or gay US President now, but I doubt you could have an atheist.

Hmmmm... Not so sure the voting block that prevents an atheist doesn't also prevent a gay President. We'll see. Coastal US is more accepting of homosexuality than Brunei. But the rest of the States? You'd like to think so, but....

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

The Yougov numbers had UKIP on 14%, not 11% so they get a one more seat. I think it would be touch and go between Labour, Brexit, and Conservative who picks up the last seat in each region. I don't think Labour would get 25 on those numbers.

"Admittedly, it’s the sort of record that would usually be a launchpad to gubernatorial or Congressional office rather than a shot at the White House."

The record of the current incumbent in the White House wouldn't even have been a launchpad to gubernatorial or Congressional office. But, if he can become universally known as "Pete", and run on the ticket of "I'm everything Tump is not...." then that could take him far.

This sounds like the first comment on a thread in May 2005 when I suggested that Barack Obama might be the next President of the United States. He was then 50 to 1

In some ways Mayor Pete has a lot in common with Obama, both of them being much less well known than other candidates, charismatic, and positive. On the other hand Mayor Pete is probably weaker than Obama on all 3 points. There's 'relatively unknown Senator' and then there's 'Almost entirely unknown Mayor', and his oratory isn't at Obama's level.

Obama showed there is *a* path to victory for a fresh-faced semi-outsider, but that doesn't mean any or every fresh-faced semi-outsider can walk it.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

What goes on in Millfield stays in Millfield.

Including my address book....... I later saw him on TV with Prince Charles where he was described as 'one of the richest men in the world'

As rich as you, Roger?

Btw, it's interesting that you can have a black or gay US President now, but I doubt you could have an atheist.

Hmmmm... Not so sure the voting block that prevents an atheist doesn't also prevent a gay President. We'll see. Coastal US is more accepting of homosexuality than Brunei. But the rest of the States? You'd like to think so, but....

Yes, because thinking that homosexuals are immoral and that homosexuals should be put to death is the same.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Mayor Pete being gay, I feel is a positive in a Democratic primary that takes intersectionality very seriously.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Does the seat allocation actually matter, though? What everyone will be looking at is the Leave/Remain split. If the election does turn into a quasi-referendum, Labour could find itself losing votes.

The current frontrunner hasn't declared for the race and has form for taking a lot of time to decide not to run. Maybe he's waiting to see if a strong candidate will emerge who he can support? Is there a benefit to Biden in delaying entering the race?

I think the market might have already priced in a winning performance in the first debate. If he disappoints, or someone else notably excels, then there could be a major lengthening in his odds.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Mayor Pete being gay, I feel is a positive in a Democratic primary that takes intersectionality very seriously.

Polling suggests that homosexuality is tolerated less by black Americans than other ethnic groups. Considering their weight in the Democratic coalition, that could be quite a large obstacle to victory.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Mayor Pete being gay, I feel is a positive in a Democratic primary that takes intersectionality very seriously.

But, with the same voters, having served in the army will not be looked upon Kindly/

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Does the seat allocation actually matter, though? What everyone will be looking at is the Leave/Remain split. If the election does turn into a quasi-referendum, Labour could find itself losing votes.

I think the anti-Brexit parties will gain from Labour, and the Brexit Party will continue to gain from the Conservatives and UKIP.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

What goes on in Millfield stays in Millfield.

Including my address book....... I later saw him on TV with Prince Charles where he was described as 'one of the richest men in the world'

As rich as you, Roger?

Btw, it's interesting that you can have a black or gay US President now, but I doubt you could have an atheist.

Hmmmm... Not so sure the voting block that prevents an atheist doesn't also prevent a gay President. We'll see. Coastal US is more accepting of homosexuality than Brunei. But the rest of the States? You'd like to think so, but....

Yes, because thinking that homosexuals are immoral and that homosexuals should be put to death is the same.

Can we please stop this false equivalence?

They're pretty connected. Those who think homosexuals should be stoned to death think that because (however fucked up that is) they think homosexuality is immoral, not because they diasapprove of their fashion sense.

"A decade ago, one of those who knows the Tory party best told me that the Tories would only turn to Boris when they were 3-0 down with 15 minutes to go.

They now are three down and that means Boris is back in contention for the premiership."

The tories are going to need somebody who can talk 100 Years War, Aggressively Managed No Deal WTO Brexit with Sectoral Mini-Deals before a GE and then, if they somehow manage to win, effortlessly pivot to 2nd Ref/Revoke after it.

Only Boris has the sort of shameless amoral vacuity required. The tories would be mad to go for anyone else.

Interesting that in America a gay man could become president whereas the Brunai Royal Family has just decreed that homosexuality should be punishable by stoning.

Almost the entire Brunai royal family went to Millfield. One shared a room with me. Happily I can confirm absolute probity during the entirity of that year otherwise I would have no hesitation in reporting him for a retrospective stoning.

What goes on in Millfield stays in Millfield.

Including my address book....... I later saw him on TV with Prince Charles where he was described as 'one of the richest men in the world'

As rich as you, Roger?

Btw, it's interesting that you can have a black or gay US President now, but I doubt you could have an atheist.

Hmmmm... Not so sure the voting block that prevents an atheist doesn't also prevent a gay President. We'll see. Coastal US is more accepting of homosexuality than Brunei. But the rest of the States? You'd like to think so, but....

Yes, because thinking that homosexuals are immoral and that homosexuals should be put to death is the same.

Can we please stop this false equivalence?

They're pretty connected. Those who think homosexuals should be stoned to death think that because (however fucked up that is) they think homosexuality is immoral, not because they diasapprove of their fashion sense.

Of course they are related, but they are not the same, and the scale of the problem is not the same.

I would also note that in the USA attitudes to homosexuality continue to grow more tolerant. I am not aware of any such trend in the Islamic world.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Does the seat allocation actually matter, though? What everyone will be looking at is the Leave/Remain split. If the election does turn into a quasi-referendum, Labour could find itself losing votes.

I think the anti-Brexit parties will gain from Labour, and the Brexit Party will continue to gain from the Conservatives and UKIP.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Mayor Pete being gay, I feel is a positive in a Democratic primary that takes intersectionality very seriously.

But, with the same voters, having served in the army will not be looked upon Kindly/</blockquote

I don't that's true. I think that's more of a caricature. The same way some caricature conservative Americans as all being racist or anti gay.

The current frontrunner hasn't declared for the race and has form for taking a lot of time to decide not to run. Maybe he's waiting to see if a strong candidate will emerge who he can support? Is there a benefit to Biden in delaying entering the race?

I think the market might have already priced in a winning performance in the first debate. If he disappoints, or someone else notably excels, then there could be a major lengthening in his odds.

The benefit so far has been to avoid posting fundraising figures for the end of March, which might have been embarrassing, and giving himself less time to gaffe. As front runner, he hasn’t had much to gain by declaring early, and plenty to lose.

My guess is that he’s going to find things start to become much more difficult once he declares.

The debates are going to be interesting, but there’s an awful lot of candidates qualifying for them. As we saw with Trump, being a dominant personality is of more importance than any particular accomplishment in debate, when you’re in a crowd.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Mayor Pete being gay, I feel is a positive in a Democratic primary that takes intersectionality very seriously.

But, with the same voters, having served in the army will not be looked upon Kindly/

I don't think that will be a problem. Even among the left of the Democrats they aren't anti-soldier. Far less politically damaging to have been in a war than to have voted for a war. I don't know that being gay will end up being that much of a plus though. He's still a white male so those who are motivated by identity politics will want someone who ticks more boxes.

He’s rising in the polls, getting lots of favourable media coverage, breaking out into public awareness and the money is flowing in. His odds aren’t that silly. He’s got momentum.

Being gay is a plus not a minus. By the end of his run political palaeontologists will be looking at the political corpses his sexuality has attracted in the way their science cousins look at the tar pits of La Brea.

His price may well be a bit too short now but it looks like it’s shortening a way yet. I expect I’ll be laying him eventually but he is going to continue moving through the field. He’s got talent and a distinctive pitch. No doubt it will be tested soon enough.

Mayor Pete being gay, I feel is a positive in a Democratic primary that takes intersectionality very seriously.

But, with the same voters, having served in the army will not be looked upon Kindly/

I don't think that will be a problem. Even among the left of the Democrats they aren't anti-soldier. Far less politically damaging to have been in a war than to have voted for a war. I don't know that being gay will end up being that much of a plus though. He's still a white male so those who are motivated by identity politics will want someone who ticks more boxes.

A large majority of Democrats want a candidate who will win. The rest is secondary.

May 2 will be somewhat instructive. How prepared are the super cross to abstain or move their cross? It's far easier to tell a pollster you are abandoning a lifetime of support than do so in the booth. If the Tories can stay within a few % of labour at the locals and euros they should hold on at a GE to largest party, esp as UKIP will not be standing many candidates (cashflow) and Brexit will have less impact IF we have left in some fashion

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Does the seat allocation actually matter, though? What everyone will be looking at is the Leave/Remain split. If the election does turn into a quasi-referendum, Labour could find itself losing votes.

The UK sending 38 MEPs who are somewhere between lukewarm and absolute zero on the EU - many wanting to make life as awkward as they can in Brussels - is what Brussels will see.

Very worrying polling for the Tories. Perhaps those of us who said that failing to deliver Brexit guarantees a Corbyn Government were right after all?

A No Deal Brexit ensures a Corbyn premiership.

I also remember back in 2016 by Tory Leavers that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party and country.

We could have left with a deal by now, if it weren’t for the stupidity of 40 of our MPs.

The stupidity was allowing the meaningful vote. As soon as that was permissible, the refeeendum was betrayed.

It wasn't "allowed"; it was legislated for by a parliament elected after the referendum. The parties put forward manifestos that made pledges about the Brexit deal. Labour said they wanted the benefits of the single market and customs union. The Tories said we needed to know the future relationship at the end of the Article 50 period.

What's you're witnessing is not the betrayal of Brexit, but the failure of Brexit.

Very worrying polling for the Tories. Perhaps those of us who said that failing to deliver Brexit guarantees a Corbyn Government were right after all?

A No Deal Brexit ensures a Corbyn premiership.

I also remember back in 2016 by Tory Leavers that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party and country.

We could have left with a deal by now, if it weren’t for the stupidity of 40 of our MPs.

The stupidity was allowing the meaningful vote. As soon as that was permissible, the refeeendum was betrayed.

It wasn't "allowed"; it was legislated for by a parliament elected after the referendum. The parties put forward manifestos that made pledges about the Brexit deal. Labour said they wanted the benefits of the single market and customs union. The Tories said we needed to know the future relationship at the end of the Article 50 period.

What's you're witnessing is not the betrayal of Brexit, but the failure of Brexit.

Allowing a group of people at odds with the country on the subject a meaningful vote betrayed the referendum

I suspect the clamor for PR will be strong after the next GE again. I'd personally prefer a scots/Welsh type arrangement. 500 constituency mps and 150 top ups or if not a directly elected upper chamber with a 2/3 veto on non budget and QS legislation by full PR

In terms of maximising representation at regional level, it's an almost perfect result for anti-EU parties, at the same time as wasting a huge number of votes for pro-EU parties. Either one of the pro-EU parties has to break out of the pack, or they all have to pull votes away from Labour.

Does the seat allocation actually matter, though? What everyone will be looking at is the Leave/Remain split. If the election does turn into a quasi-referendum, Labour could find itself losing votes.

The UK sending 38 MEPs who are somewhere between lukewarm and absolute zero on the EU - many wanting to make life as awkward as they can in Brussels - is what Brussels will see.

Very worrying polling for the Tories. Perhaps those of us who said that failing to deliver Brexit guarantees a Corbyn Government were right after all?

A No Deal Brexit ensures a Corbyn premiership.

I also remember back in 2016 by Tory Leavers that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party and country.

We could have left with a deal by now, if it weren’t for the stupidity of 40 of our MPs.

The stupidity was allowing the meaningful vote. As soon as that was permissible, the refeeendum was betrayed.

It wasn't "allowed"; it was legislated for by a parliament elected after the referendum. The parties put forward manifestos that made pledges about the Brexit deal. Labour said they wanted the benefits of the single market and customs union. The Tories said we needed to know the future relationship at the end of the Article 50 period.

What's you're witnessing is not the betrayal of Brexit, but the failure of Brexit.

Allowing a group of people at odds with the country on the subject a meaningful vote betrayed the referendum

Very worrying polling for the Tories. Perhaps those of us who said that failing to deliver Brexit guarantees a Corbyn Government were right after all?

A No Deal Brexit ensures a Corbyn premiership.

I also remember back in 2016 by Tory Leavers that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party and country.

We could have left with a deal by now, if it weren’t for the stupidity of 40 of our MPs.

The stupidity was allowing the meaningful vote. As soon as that was permissible, the refeeendum was betrayed.

It wasn't "allowed"; it was legislated for by a parliament elected after the referendum. The parties put forward manifestos that made pledges about the Brexit deal. Labour said they wanted the benefits of the single market and customs union. The Tories said we needed to know the future relationship at the end of the Article 50 period.

What's you're witnessing is not the betrayal of Brexit, but the failure of Brexit.

Allowing a group of people at odds with the country on the subject a meaningful vote betrayed the referendum